Religious persecution around the world threatens many minority groups — Egyptian Copts, Pakistani Ahmadiyas, Saudi Ismaili Shiites, Baha’is in Iran, and Chinese Sunni Uighurs, Catholics, and Tibetan Buddhists. Despite the presence of American troops, Iraq is in its seventh year of a “religious cleansing” against its native Christian, Yizidi, and Mandean populations, while its handful of remaining Jews are now desperately trying to flee after being identified by Wikileaks. Those who do not conform to prevailing religious orthodoxies are also targeted individually: For example, in Iran, apostasy charges threaten the life of a Christian pastor. This year, Pakistan’s minister of minorities and the governor of Punjab were separately gunned down for defending those imprisoned under a harsh blasphemy law.
It is this moment that the U.S. Senate has chosen to quietly shut down the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
USCIRF’s mandate was to expire at the end of last month, but it was given a short reprieve through the continuing resolution on the budget. Meanwhile, on September 15, the House of Representatives, in a 391–21 vote, overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2867 to reauthorize USCIRF for two more years. In the Senate, H.R. 2867 was poised to pass under a unanimous consent agreement when a single senator anonymously called it back for undisclosed reasons. If that secret hold is not lifted by November 18, the Senate will not be able to act and USCIRF will go out of existence.
USCIRF was created in 1998 under the International Religious Freedom Act, an initiative of Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.). It was overwhelmingly adopted by both chambers and signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton. Its mandate was born of the concern that, when it comes to religion issues in foreign affairs, the foreign-policy establishment, the media, and secular human-rights groups have been inattentive at best. In contrast to the State Department’s own religious freedom office, USCIRF is an independent agency. It names the world’s worst religious persecutors and makes non-binding foreign-policy recommendations to the government. Its inter-faith group of nine commissioners (full disclosure: I am one of them) are appointed on a bipartisan basis.
At $4 million, its budget is a fraction of the U.S. Institute for Peace’s; it rents a modest suite of offices for its staff, and its commissioners receive no remuneration for their time. Nevertheless, USCIRF is distinguished as a bold voice within the government and has seen important accomplishments. It pushed the Bush administration to understand the north–south conflict in Sudan as primarily a religious one, and not merely a fight over resources; this led to specific policies that resulted in the secession of South Sudan this past July and political independence and religious freedom for its people. It got the State Department to designate as “egregious” persecutors China, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan. It keeps the focus on religious atrocities in places like Vietnam, Pakistan, Iraq, and Egypt, even when the State Department does not.
USCIRF was the first official body to recognize the terrible plight of Iraq’s minorities, and to speak up for the Copts; it is now pushing for some of America’s aid to Egypt to be used to protect this endangered group. Five years ago, it was the first to take official notice of Saudi textbooks inciting religious violence; influenced by USCIRF prodding, the State Department has decided this year to take a look for itself inside these texts. Recently, USCIRF identified key Iranian authorities responsible for religious persecution and succeeded in having them denied visas. In Nigeria, its insistent appeals to end legal impunity, impressed on its leaders in repeated visits by USCIRF delegations headed by chair Leonard Leo, led this year to the first convictions in sectarian strife that has killed thousands over the past decade.
When we recently traveled to Riyadh to meet with Saudi ministers of education, justice and Islamic affairs, we found that every other American there on official business represented the oil industry, the military, or counterterrorism interests. Those are all important things, of course, but it occurred to me: USCIRF’s biggest contribution may simply be representing in the darkest, most closed corners of the world America’s bedrock belief — the individual’s inalienable right to religious freedom. USCIRF is one reliable voice within the government that does not find the issue of religious freedom too sensitive to bring up with foreign potentates.
In this, USCIRF is unique. Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and the Philippines are now examining its model. Other world democracies may soon follow America’s lead — this month, the European Union called for its member states to adopt specific guidelines on the defense of freedom of religion and belief abroad, citing in particular the repression of religious minorities and persecution from apostasy laws. It would be ironic indeed if the U.S. Senate were to unilaterally give up a key American instrument in the global contest of ideas, just as other parts of the free world are starting to catch on to the importance of religious freedom.
In establishing USCIRF, a broad inter-faith coalition prevailed over a well-padded trade lobby and influential establishment figures such as then–Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who has since recanted her opposition). The American people need to remind their senators of the importance of religious freedom in foreign policy and of USCIRF’s key role in this.
— Nina Shea is director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. The views expressed here are her own.
This highlights our budget problems today. According to this post only "4 million dollars" is what is in the budget. Yes, it is a worthy cause, but is it the Federal Government's job to be sponsoring this group?? Every budget outlay has it's constituency which believes it is "only X millions/billions" but it is a "noble cause" which must be supported! That is how we have gotten in this mess we are in. Cut, cut, cut, no excuses. If it is such a "noble" cause then private individuals will step up. If they don't, so be it. Just don't have our taxes going to support "noble" causes because no one else will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, if you need $4 million get it from Wall St., a philanthropist, or better yet - ask a church. Churches aren't taxed, and this seems like a perfect use of their resources.
Asking tax payers to fund a terminal study abroad program for some religious/ethnic studies PhD's seems like a complete and utter waste. I'm glad to see this program is getting axed. I'm sure whoever worked here will be able to find employment at a Starbucks or something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUntil this group has more authority to do more than just speak up about injustices, I can't see how this is anything more than a waste of money.
Can it issue sanctions? No. Can it provide any meaningful support to religious minorities? No. Can it even convince the SoS or Obama to open his mouth about religious persection? No. All this is is a meaningless gesture that wastes $4 million dollars. Give it some teeth or shut its doors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou miss the point, Broccoli! No one can do ANY thing if the only official source is silenced.
Without this source, there is no official information to cite to the powers that can do something. This would be a horrible loss.
Christians: Do not let this be put to death quietly because guess whose persecution is not getting reported by other groups like the U.N.
Time to rise up and demand sustained life for this important work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In the Senate, H.R. 2867 was poised to pass under a unanimous consent agreement when a single senator anonymously called it back for undisclosed reasons."
Hey, can't get in the way of that there Arab Spring thing.
And yeah, there are alot of other programs that say, "We're important too!" So what's the difference? This one *is* important.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read the post and the comments and I'm not convinced that the USCIRF ought not to go out of existence.
To the extent that the U.S. wishes to opine about or to attempt to affect the internal affairs of other nations, religious freedom is an appropriate area of concern. But I don't see why the existence and nature of the focus shouldn't be controlled by the President - in other words, why it shouldn't be done within the Department of State.
It may well be that a President doesn't pay attention to what others believe he should - doesn't give religious freedom a sufficient priority or doesn't do much about infringements on religious freedom taking place in certain countries. (In other words, I'll assume that the post is correct in describing the ways the USCIRF has pressured the rest of the Government to pay attention to matters that it otherwise might not.)
But then why shouldn't this notice and pressure (on the President and Members of Congress) be done by outside organizations that raise their money and that consist of persons who care about these issues and with respect to whom the organization seeks to have as credible champions for its cause? For example, Amnesty International gets plenty of criticism, but it's out there, it's a non-governmental agency, it raises its own money, sets its own agenda and is more independent than is the USCIRF. (I'm not suggesting that AI is a model, per se, so much as to point out that it seems to have an impact and yet it's not a federal independent agency.)
There may be an argument for an independent USCIRF or maybe even to spend the $4 million spent on USCIRF within the State Department. But explaining how much good it has done doesn't help persuade me that it's a proper governmental function or a proper independent agency function.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you kidding? In a day when even the National Security Estimate is politicized (NIE report during Bush admin that Iran was no longer pursuing a nuke), you can't see the need for independent reporting on this issue?
What is more politically expendable than a minority group of Christian in an Islamic state? Not much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNina states the case very well, but sadly, a Senate unwilling to follow the House lead in stripping abortion funding from Obamacare is no place to look for truth in matters of religious freedom. If this were about money, the fact that the independant commission highlighted abuses ignored by our State Department is an argument in favor of abolishing that office too, but that would highlight the anti-faith agenda of this Administration, an inconvenient truth if ever there was one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNina states the case well, but sadly the Senate, which is unlikely to follow the US House's lead in stripping abortion funding from Obamacare, is no place to look for protecting religious freedom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse